User:Qzou3/Primer walking/Cocomonster0o Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Qzou3 (Sunny)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Qzou3/Primer_walking?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Primer walking

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * Lead has been updated and has reflected new content added by Sunny. The lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and not overly detailed and it describes the article's topic. It did not contain the article's major section.

Content


 * The content added to the article is relevant as it pertains to the topic of primer walking. There doesn't appear any content missing but to improve on the article, I recommend linking different wikipedia articles such as PCR (example: Polymerase chain reaction) to help users more understand what you are trying to describe. Also, bolding the text that are important such as the topic itself, "Primer walking" just for visuals. I believe you were meant to attach an image but was not here in the draft. Lastly, overall the grammar and punctuation all seems in the right places.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is neutral. There are no claims that appear to be heavily biased toward a particular position. There are no overrepresented nor underrepresented viewpoints. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position nor away from another. Overall, the content did not reflect any bias when it was written by Sunny.

Sources and References


 * The new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information; however, not all of the sentences include citations. The content added is well up to date as one of the reference was only published in 2015; however the other reference I was unable to check the date of it so unsure if it's up to date, maybe going through google scholar and finding something similar will help strengthen your references.

Organization


 * The content added was clear and easy to read, it was pretty easy to follow and I understand mostly what you wanted to say, however a room for improvement would be in the article body, some sentences did not flow right which can be difficult to comprehend, such as the libraries of fragment, maybe separating it in a different section can help clarify it or maybe adding a sentence before to introduce the what a chromosome walking library is and it's purpose can help clarify this complication. In addition, I was unable to see an image but one of the sentences stated, "Protocol for chromosomal walking of DNA is described in Fig. Chromosomal Walking of DNA.", figure was not visible in the draft, however this addition of protocol would be very helpful if you do end up adding it in the article. I believe the strength of this paper is the lead that contained a really well phrased sentence that well described the topic of this article.

Images and Media


 * Images were not added by Sunny, thus, this section is irrelevant.

Overall impressions


 * Overall, there were room for improvements but this topic was difficult so I am impressed you found additions to this articles and made it more concise and clear. Job well done, Sunny!